Close call - Wet Camera

[armando_m]

During my trip to Isla Isabel I went alone to a beach with bigger waves, right before sunset

#1 I'm standing on a slippery rock

The waves kept a good distance, but I could see wet floor and water puddles all around me, if a bigger wave came I couldn't move fast, so I went to safer ground

#2 The rock I was standing on is the one on the foreground, only 1m away, the floor over here is wet but not slippery , if needed I can move fast


#3 oops

I was chimping and hit the shutter again without realizing the size of the wave coming to me, it soaked my right side , all the way to my underwear, I had a towel with me to dry the mist form the lens, it was useful to dry the camera body and lens

I was using the nex5n with the f-mount adater and the tokina 11-16, eveything kept working fine :thumbsup:

I guess not much water hit the camera, using the adapter it is not really that well fitting an certainly doesn't have a gasket, I was expecting to find some water inside the camera but luckily there was none.

It took me a longer time to clean the tripod from dry salt

When shooting in risky areas I think is a good idea to bring a buddy to watch for you while you are fiddling with the camera

[daq7]

The first and the second are both great shots.

[armando_m]

Thanks Daq

yeah the third one is just to ilustrate the story

[starriderrick]

You are a smart man to respect the power of the ocean....Mighty fine shots 1,2. ;0) Good job being safe And, getting the shot!

Rick

[shaxi]

Good job being safe And, getting the shot!:thumbsup:

[Photo-John]

Yikes. That's a scary story. Looks like you almost became a statistic. Having a buddy along when doing risky outdoor activities is always a good idea. I can see how that might not have occurred to you when you headed out to the the ocean for these photos, though. The important thing is that you learn from your mistakes. Glad you made it back to share these photos with us

Question - the photos look soft and watercolory to me. Were they shot at very high ISO or did you run some sort of post-processing on them? I know you were using a tripod and slow shutter speed. But that doesn't account for the softness in the rocks. At least I don't think it does.

[armando_m]

Thanks Rick, and Shaxi

Yikes. That's a scary story. Looks like you almost became a statistic. Having a buddy along when doing risky outdoor activities is always a good idea. I can see how that might not have occurred to you when you headed out to the the ocean for these photos, though. The important thing is that you learn from your mistakes. Glad you made it back to share these photos with us

Question - the photos look soft and watercolory to me. Were they shot at very high ISO or did you run some sort of post-processing on them? I know you were using a tripod and slow shutter speed. But that doesn't account for the softness in the rocks. At least I don't think it does.

Thanks John,
yes, I think if the wave had caught me in the initial position it would not have been pretty

Regarding the IQ I'm puzzled, I do not know why is so bad, I was using ISO 100

I think the lens may had water spray on it and I didn't notice, other factors: manual focus, using an adapter , smallest possible aperture

Also notice the crop being 8x10 instead of 4x6 ? the right side of the images had this dark strips that I cropped of, this leads me to suspect the use of the lens through the adapter

Usually the tokina11-16 is one of the sharpest lenses I have

yes I did PP on them, the originals look worst

[Photo-John]

Regarding the IQ I'm puzzled, I do not know why is so bad, I was using ISO 100

Were you shooting JPEG or RAW? How long were your exposures? At ISO 100 these should be totally sharp. And unless you had a film of salt water on the lens, I think they should look better. Let's figure this out!

[armando_m]

Were you shooting JPEG or RAW? How long were your exposures? At ISO 100 these should be totally sharp. And unless you had a film of salt water on the lens, I think they should look better. Let's figure this out!

Thanks John

I shot it Raw

Looking at the original , it is underexposed , I can increase exposure 1EV before any highlights are blown in the sky,
the shadows are still way dark, so I did pull the shadows a lot, creating the effect of having shot it at a way higher ISO at
least in the dark areas

edit: here is an SOOC , converted to JPG and resized only, should be visible once approved in the gallery

[draymorton]

Technical/equipment issues aside, I really like the look of the first two. And third is a great, if dangerous, moment.

[armando_m]

I reconverted the raw file with lightroom 4 beta, now look at the detail on the rocks !!
and no more greenish tones on the rocks



I was previously using the sony provided software

[xlynn]

What lens was used for this?

[Greg McCary]

Be careful Armando I echo Johns comments. Try and always have someone with you.

[Ballen Photo]

I reconverted the raw file with lightroom 4 beta, now look at the detail on the rocks !!
and no more greenish tones on the rocks

http://gallery.photographyreview.com.../DSC1414-1.jpg

I was previously using the sony provided software

SWEET! I definitely see a difference. :thumbsup:
-Bruce

[freygr]

This happens on the Oregon coast all the time, sometimes with fatal results. The water is much colder too!

[mattb]

Glad it wasn't worse for you or your gear!
The re-processed shot looks great!

[Rivman]

SWEET! I definitely see a difference. :thumbsup:

What Bruce sez: +1 Armando, much improved !! :thumbsup: